Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[logs]

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I still doubt it's been altered, but that is an interesting point.

The logs I had came with an annoying > in front of it (plus the non-breaking character), which for some reason when I copied to this forum changed into a "01". I started manually removing them by hand (ie. deleting both the NBS and the 01), but in the end got terribly bored of doing so, copied it to Textedit, and find-replaced the "01" with nothing. There should be a clear point, about x amount of the way down, where the non-breaking spaces start appearing every time (which is where I started using Textedit); before that point, it'll likely be a mixture of some with NBS and some without, depending on whether I managed to backspace out the NBS when deleting the 01.

The logs I had came with an annoying > in front of it (plus the non-breaking character), which for some reason when I copied to this forum changed into a "01". I started manually removing them by hand (ie. deleting both the NBS and the 01), but in the end got terribly bored of doing so, copied it to Textedit, and find-replaced the "01" with nothing. There should be a clear point, about x amount of the way down, where the non-breaking spaces start appearing.

Hope this clears it up.

WP doesn't do due process, and we don't do good faith All kidding aside, for reference, you may wish in future to consider the "ramifications" of "boredom" when it comes to tidying up logs where there are accusations of context bias, if not outright forgery

WP doesn't do due process, and we don't do good faith All kidding aside, for reference, you may wish in future to consider the "ramifications" of "boredom" when it comes to tidying up logs where there are accusations of context bias, if not outright forgery

"Ramifications" of "mild ocdness", maybe

Further clarification to what I wrote above: the ">"s (and hence the "01"s) were in front of every line written by IH, because they are his logs. They were obviously not in front of what Chip wrote.

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

There's no acknowledgement whatsoever by ArbCom of Jehochman's appalling behavior at all throughout all of this, nor any mention of him and his friends pushing hard to get their enemies desysopped...and at this rate they'll end up getting away with all of this without even a mention by ArbCom, let alone an admonishment or a desysopping.

Wikipedia turns small disagreements into huge battles and large disagreements into impossible snarled traffic jams.

Wikipedia is played like a MMORPG but I think the real life emotional intensity there exceeds that of most MMORPGs. I got dibs on eMMORPG.

Emotional investment in online relationships has increased a lot since I was a young buck (actually back then there was no online). We did have Ann Landers and Dear Abbey in the newspapers to titillate our voyeuristic fantasies but that was about it (yeah, we used to get two newspapers a day, morning & afternoon).

What boggles me most is the spark that ignited this entire train wreck. A dispute over renaming some obscure (to me) bio from 3 names to 2? And presumably fix the redirects? Excuse me for not being a WP editor, but was this as big a deal as it escalated into?

Makes me think that some editors will seize any opportunity to stab their so-called opponents in the back.

Meanwhile, save your emotions for real people, not virtual people, and while you're at it, get the fuck off my lawn

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

True that. I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment...

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

There's no acknowledgement whatsoever by ArbCom of Jehochman's appalling behavior at all throughout all of this, nor any mention of him and his friends pushing hard to get their enemies desysopped...and at this rate they'll end up getting away with all of this without even a mention by ArbCom, let alone an admonishment or a desysopping.

Arbcom reminds me of a famous Abbott and Costello exchange:

Abbott: Just remember - I'm the boss and you're nothing.Costello: How do you like that -- boss over nothing!

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment...

Thanks. GBG is mensch.

I clicked the link a few minutes before my post and found that it was still there. Glad it was fixed expeditiously.

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

I'm having trouble finding the "evidence page" in question - all I'm seeing are a bunch of vituperative comments from Ms. Chihuahua about their all being deceived and betrayed, yada yada yada, plus a little backtracking where she says they should stop using terms like "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" here, and suggesting that "Watergate" is the more appropriate analogy.

I think we should all be clear on one thing: Despite her past associations, Jennavecia(T-C-L-K-R-D)
is, or rather was, in many ways one of the most conscientious and ethical administrators Wikipedia has ever had. This has little to do with her presumed decision to "value personal friendship over Wikipedia policy," as if such a decision would even be an issue for a sane person. To revoke her admin rights in response to such a trivial situation is just further proof that Wikipedia's dominant core group hasn't really changed significantly in the past 3-4 years, even if the majority of users have somehow managed to develop a more realistic view of Wikipedia's place in the world, and (hopefully) what its problems are.

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981

QUOTE(One @ Wed 7th October 2009, 8:26pm)

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th October 2009, 1:27am)

QUOTE(One @ Wed 7th October 2009, 8:07pm)

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment...

Thanks. GBG is mensch.

I clicked the link a few minutes before my post and found that it was still there. Glad it was fixed expeditiously.

Well, remember this is just a thread about Wikipedians doing Wikipedian shit. I thought that this was some other much more significant "Daniel" until someone disabused me. So, I guess we will never know if I'd extend the same courtesy to this Wikipedian guy.